Space Colonization

[Redistribute the Rep]

What kind of social structure will the humans who colonize space have?
I imagine that at first there will be less social inequality and it will be like the early nomadic groups because of the lack of private property as the colonizers jump from planet to planet. But then as they begin making more permanent settlements private property and social inequality will arise.

[Comrade Jacob]

What kind of social structure will the humans who colonize space have?
I imagine that at first there will be less social inequality and it will be like the early nomadic groups because of the lack of private property as the colonizers jump from planet to planet. But then as they begin making more permanent settlements private property and social inequality will arise.

If humanity hasn't become communist/socialist by the point of space-colonization then it will just be imperialism, simple as. I have no problem if we colonize if they have no intelligent life on it. Unless they would want to merge with us.

[Redistribute the Rep]

If humanity hasn't become communist/socialist by the point of space-colonization then it will just be imperialism, simple as. I have no problem if we colonize if they have no intelligent life on it. Unless they would want to merge with us.

Yea, I meant colonizing uninhabited planets or moons. I was more looking for a response on how the colonizers will be organized socially/politically. Will society follow the same pattern of development as it has on earth? I would imagine it will be similar.

[motion denied]

Workers have no planet.

Well I guess it will depend highly on geographic and climatic conditions, as well as Earth's technological capacity. In all honesty, however, I see no "space colonization" happening, just space travels as a means of scientific research and maybe kickass tourism.

[Red Economist]

At a guess, Probably Communist. If you think about the film Total Recall (the original), the Air was privatized on the Mars colony. it is hard to see that being acceptable in real life. That said, technology does not automatically lead to a change in social structure, as that is the result of the class struggle. So it depends on the proletariat.

[Comrade Jacob]

Yea, I meant colonizing uninhabited planets or moons. I was more looking for a response on how the colonizers will be organized socially/politically. Will society follow the same pattern of development as it has on earth? I would imagine it will be similar.

We should start off with a socialist platform, we are building on these planets/moons we must make it 'run' socialism. We can't be propping up a capitalist model for example.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Workers have no planet.

Well I guess it will depend highly on geographic and climatic conditions, as well as Earth's technological capacity. In all honesty, however, I see no "space colonization" happening, just space travels as a means of scientific research and maybe kickass tourism.

I think it's important to create settlements on other planets. The human race must achieve immortality through space colonization as there could always be a nuclear war or natural disaster that makes earth uninhabitable.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi Russian: I am a fan of astronomy, ufology and SETI, and all that has to do with the search for extraterrestrial beings on space, and about space travel technology. And I think that because of capitalist imperialist governments have been spending and investing so many millions of dollars on imperialist wars for oil and resources, that itself is an impediment for mankind to have the necessary economic resources available for scientific progress. That's why there hasn't been any fast progress on creating a modern spaceship able to travel to other planets using light-speed technology. Earth itself is full of problems, there are millions of people facing hunger, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and many other painful problems because capitalist governments are not able to govern efficiently to the 100% of humans.

So I think that the capitalist system itself is an impediment for humans to colonize other planets, to travel to other planets in an efficient way

Here is an article from Wikipedia.org about the basic premises of space-colonization:

SPACE COLONIZATION

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Mars_mission.jpg/800px-Mars_mission.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

Space colonization (also called space settlement, or extraterrestrial colonization) is permanent human habitation outside of Earth. Many arguments have been made for space colonization. The two most common ones, though, are: survival of human civilization and the biosphere from possible disasters (natural or man-made), and the huge resources in space for expansion of human society. However, as of right now the building of a space colony would be a hugely difficult and massively expensive project. Space settlements would have to provide for all the material needs of hundreds or thousands of humans, in an environment out in space that is very hostile to human life. They would involve technologies, such as closed-loop life support systems, that have yet to be developed in any meaningful way.

They would also have to deal with the as yet unknown issue of how humans would behave and thrive in such places long-term. There have been no space colonies built so far, nor are there any governments or large-scale private organizations with a timetable for building any. However there have been many proposals, speculations and designs for space settlements that have been made, and there are a considerable number of space colonization advocates and groups. And several famous scientists, such as Freeman Dyson, have come out in favor of space settlement.

REASONS FOR THE COLONIZATION OF SPACE

Survival of human civilization
The primary argument that calls for space colonization as a first-order priority is as insurance of the survival of human civilization, by developing alternative locations off Earth where humankind could continue in the event of natural and man-made disasters. Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking has argued for space colonization as a means of saving humanity, in 2001 and 2006. In 2001 he predicted that the human race would become extinct within the next thousand years, unless colonies could be established in space. The more recent one in 2006 stated that mankind faces two options: Either we colonize space within the next two hundred years and build residential units on other planets or we will face the prospect of long-term extinction.

Louis J. Halle, formerly of the United States Department of State, wrote in Foreign Affairs (Summer 1980) that the colonization of space will protect humanity in the event of global nuclear warfare. The physicist Paul Davies also supports the view that if a planetary catastrophe threatens the survival of the human species on Earth, a self-sufficient colony could "reverse-colonize" Earth and restore human civilization. The author and journalist William E. Burrows and the biochemist Robert Shapiro proposed a private project, the Alliance to Rescue Civilization, with the goal of establishing an off-Earth backup of human civilization. J. Richard Gott has estimated, based on his Copernican principle, that the human race could survive for another 7.8 million years, but it isn't likely to ever colonize other planets. However, he expressed a hope to be proven wrong, because "colonizing other worlds is our best chance to hedge our bets and improve the survival prospects of our species".

Survival of the biosphere
Some of the more severe existential risks to humankind could also destroy parts or all of Earth's biosphere as well. An example would be a very large asteroid impact. And although many have speculated about life and intelligence existing in other parts of space, Earth is the only place in the universe currently known to harbor either of these (see: Fermi Paradox, and Rare Earth Hypothesis). But even if these threats are averted, eventually Earth is to become uninhabitable. This is due to the Sun getting hotter and brighter over its lifetime (the Sun was only 70 percent as bright as it is now when it first formed 4.5 billion years ago). It has been suggested that approximately 800 million years from now, that Earth will cease to be able to sustain multi-cellular life. Later on in several billion years, the brightening Sun will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, extinguishing all life on Earth.

Vast resources in space
Resources in space are enormous, both in materials and energy. The Solar System alone has, according to different estimates, enough material and energy to support a human population anywhere from several thousand to over a billion times that of the current human population. Outside the Solar System in the Milky Way are anywhere up to several hundred billion other stellar systems.

Expansion with fewer negative consequences
Aside from Earth's, there are no currently known biospheres, nor indigenous people to be displaced by the encroachment of humanity.

Could help Earth
Another argument for space colonization is to mitigate the negative effects of overpopulation. If the resources of space were opened to use and viable life-supporting habitats were built, Earth would no longer define the limitations of growth. Although Earth's resources do not grow, one more and more learns to exploit them effectively, and sometimes even almost completely, on the basis of nuclear engineering. In particular, progresses with the annihilation of matter could render spaceflight and colonization more efficient and affordable, to a revolutionary degree. Moreover, as extraterrestrial resources become available, demand on terrestrial ones would decline.

Other arguments
Additional goals cite the innate human drive to explore and discover, a quality recognized at the core of progress and thriving civilizations. In 2001, the space news website Space.com asked Freeman Dyson, J. Richard Gott and Sid Goldstein for reasons why some humans should live in space. Their answers were:

Spread life and beauty throughout the universe

Ensure the survival of our species

Make money through new forms of space commercialization such as solar-power satellites, asteroid mining, and space manufacturing

Save the environment of Earth by moving people and industry into space

Provide entertainment value in order to distract from immediate surroundings, space tourism

Ensure sufficient supply of rare materials, including from the outer Solar System—natural gas (in connection with expected worldwide hydrocarbons peak) and drinking water (in connection with expected worldwide water shortage)

Freeman Dyson has suggested that within a few centuries human civilization will have relocated to the Kuiper belt.

Nick Bostrom has argued that from a utilitarian perspective, space colonization should be a chief goal as it would enable a very large population to live for a very long period of time (possibly billions of years) which would produce an enormous amount of utility (or happiness). He claims that it is more important to reduce existential risks to increase the probability of eventual colonization than to accelerate technological development so that space colonization could happen sooner. In his paper, he assumes that the created lives will have positive ethical value despite the problem of suffering, or that future technology could solve it.



.



Yea, I meant colonizing uninhabited planets or moons. I was more looking for a response on how the colonizers will be organized socially/politically. Will society follow the same pattern of development as it has on earth? I would imagine it will be similar.

[Ahab Strange]

I would agree. Capitalism's profit motive is a hindrance to us expanding into space. Despite the ridiculous material wealth lying about the solar system, it presently isn't a profitable enterprise to build space stations and moon bases.

A rationally planned socialist economy I think is required to overcome the huge amount of resources it would take to establish a foothold in space. The market just wont get round to it.

[Catma]

I think colonization and resource extraction is possible under Capitalism. Technology will eventually drive the cost down to the point where capitalists will engage in it.

I hope it does not happen, because additional resource exploitation and room for settlement can temporarily alleviate a number of pressures on the capitalist system. If we reach the point of interstellar settlement while under capitalism, it would be possible for it to continue nearly indefinitely, depending on the feasibility of interstellar trade.

Only "possible", not inevitable. But still, we need all the help we can get.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Aren't we kind of screwed if we get to space before Coummunism?

[tallguy]

What kind of social structure will the humans who colonize space have?
I imagine that at first there will be less social inequality and it will be like the early nomadic groups because of the lack of private property as the colonizers jump from planet to planet. But then as they begin making more permanent settlements private property and social inequality will arise.
Humans will not colonize space. We'll be lucky if we make it to the end of this century here on earth.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Humans will not colonize space. We'll be lucky if we make it to the end of this century here on earth.

Care to elaborate?

[tallguy]

Care to elaborate?
Yeah sure.

Getting into space is hard

Staying space is harder.

The alternative to staying in space is to form a colony on a habitable planet. Trouble is, there aren't any in our neighbourhood. The only candidates that provide even a sliver of possibilities are the Moon and Mars. Disadvantages of the moon are no atmosphere and so no protection whatsoever from solar radiation. Advantages are it's close. Disadvantages of Mars is next to no atmosphere and so, again, little protection from solar radiation. Additionally it's a lot further away than the Moon. Advantages are it has some water at the poles and enough atmosphere to be able to concentrate it in habitable living modules. Finally, both of these planetary bodies suffer from having no magnetic fields and so, again, no protection from solar radiation

However, the biggest obstacle to colonising the moon or Mars is the state of our Earth. If we can't manage this planet properly, one that is in principle utterly suitable for life, how on earth does anyone think we can keep our shit together sufficient to do so on planetary bodies utterly hostile to life? In addition to an unfolding environmental catastrophe here on Earth, we are now, at the planetary level, hitting the resource buffers so far as maintaining our global hydrocarbon based industrial civilisation is concerned. Consequently, we are going to be far too busy in the coming decades simply keeping ourselves fed and fighting with each other over the ashes of our industrial civilisation to have the time or [literally] the energy to be looking to colonise space. Our problem is hydrocarbons have allowed us to develop a completely disconnected existence from our environment. This, in turn, has fostered a ridiculous hubris on the back of the technologies born of this industrial age. But, without continued and ever increasing access to vast amounts of energy in the form of hydrocarbons, all the above is dust.

However, even if we find an alternative to hydrocarbons or, even worse, we decide to mine the hydrocarbon methane clathrate monsters beneath the ocean, we will unleash a climate catastrophe not seen since the end of the Permian. Indeed, we might already have started an unstoppable climate change. Basically, we get to crash on the back of running out energy, or we get to burn on the back of not running out of energy. That's our future as a species. We have backed ourselves into a corner and with 7 billion plus mouths to feed there is no easy way out. The only pertinent question that remains is how we manage the coming collapse. The future, politically, for humans is either some form of socialism or a return to barbarism. In the context of all the above, I am bound to say I find the notion that we are going to colonise space simply laughable.

We have all just lived through the peak of human civilisation in terms of both cultural as well as technological complexity. The vast majority of us just don't realise it yet.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Actually there's a lot of bodies in our solar system that have suitable conditions for colonization, for example Saturn's moon, Titan. It has a nitrogenous atmosphere, ice, low levels of radiation, and a high atmospheric pressure to gravity ratio (for ease of landing). Of course there's the downsides of it being far away and extremely cold, but the cold part could be mitigated by the fact that there's entire lakes of hydrocarbons (at least one of which is larger than any of the Great Lakes). The colony would be useful to develop the resources of the Saturn system, in particular extraction of helium-3 from Saturn.

http://spacecolonization.wikia.com/wiki/Colonization_of_Titan

[tallguy]

Actually there's a lot of bodies in our solar system that have suitable conditions for colonization, for example Saturn's moon, Titan. It has a nitrogenous atmosphere, ice, low levels of radiation, and a high atmospheric pressure to gravity ratio (for ease of landing). Of course there's the downsides of it being far away and extremely cold, but the cold part could be mitigated by the fact that there's entire lakes of hydrocarbons (at least one of which is larger than any of the Great Lakes). The colony would be useful to develop the resources of the Saturn system, in particular extraction of helium-3 from Saturn.

http://spacecolonization.wikia.com/wiki/Colonization_of_Titan
You've simply provided another planetary body far away that is extremely hostile to life without massively significant technological input that would need to be ongoing indefinitely whilst at the same time not addressing any of the other substantive points made in my reply. This is all just escapism, I'm sad to say. One which I used to engage in a lot myself as it happens.

[AmilcarCabral]

Here is a great article from wikipedia about the options of the location that space colonizers can have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization#Location

Location is a frequent point of contention between space colonization advocates. The location of colonization can be on a physical body or free-flying:

Earth orbit
Compared to other locations, Earth orbit has substantial advantages and one major, but solvable, problem. Orbits close to Earth can be reached in hours, whereas the Moon is days away and trips to Mars take months. There is ample continuous solar power in high Earth orbits. Weightlessness makes construction of large colonies considerably easier than in a gravity environment. Astronauts have demonstrated moving multi-ton satellites by hand. 0g recreation is available on orbital colonies, but not on the Moon or Mars. Finally, the level of (pseudo-) gravity is controlled at any desired level by rotating an orbital colony. Thus, the main living areas can be kept at 1 g, whereas the Moon has 1/6 g and Mars 1/3 g. It's not known what the minimum g-force is for ongoing health but 1 g is known to ensure that children grow up with strong bones and muscles.

The main disadvantage of orbital colonies is lack of materials. These may be expensively imported from the Earth, or more cheaply from extraterrestrial sources, such as the Moon (which has ample metals, silicon, and oxygen), near-Earth asteroids, comets, or elsewhere. As of 2013, the International Space Station provides a temporary, yet still non-autonomous, human presence in low Earth orbit.

The Moon
Due to its proximity and familiarity, Earth's Moon is discussed as a target for colonization. It has the benefits of proximity to Earth and lower escape velocity, allowing for easier exchange of goods and services. A drawback of the Moon is its low abundance of volatiles necessary for life such as hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon. Water-ice deposits that exist in some polar craters could serve as a source for these elements. An alternative solution is to bring hydrogen from near-Earth asteroids and combine it with oxygen extracted from lunar rock. The Moon's low surface gravity is also a concern, as it is unknown whether 1/6g is enough to maintain human health for long periods.

Lagrange points
Another near-Earth possibility are the five Earth-Moon Lagrange points. Although they would generally also take a few days to reach with current technology, many of these points would have near-continuous solar power capability since their distance from Earth would result in only brief and infrequent eclipses of light from the Sun. However, the fact that Earth-Moon Lagrange points L4 and L5 tend to collect dust and debris, while L1-L3 require active station-keeping measures to maintain a stable position, make them somewhat less suitable places for habitation than was originally believed. Additionally, the orbit of L2 - L5 takes them out of the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere for approximately two-thirds of the time, exposing them to the health threat from cosmic rays. The five Earth–Sun Lagrange points would totally eliminate eclipses, but only L1 and L2 would be reachable in a few days' time. The other three Earth-Sun points would require months to reach.

Near-Earth asteroids
Many small asteroids in orbit around the Sun have the advantage that they pass closer than Earth's moon several times per decade. In between these close approaches to home, the asteroid may travel out to a furthest distance of some 350,000,000 kilometers from the Sun (its aphelion) and 500,000,000 kilometers from Earth.

Mars
The surface of Mars is about the same size as the dry land surface of Earth. The ice in Mars' south polar cap, if spread over the planet, would be a layer 12 meters (39 feet) thick[46] and there is carbon (locked as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).

Mars may have gone through similar geological and hydrological processes as Earth and therefore might contain valuable mineral ores. Equipment is available to extract in situ resources (e.g., water, air) from the Martian ground and atmosphere. There is interest in colonizing Mars in part because life could have existed on Mars at some point in its history, and may even still exist in some parts of the planet.

However, its atmosphere is very thin (averaging 800 Pa or about 0.8% of Earth sea-level atmospheric pressure); so the pressure vessels necessary to support life are very similar to deep-space structures. The climate of Mars is colder than Earth's. The dust storms block out most of the sun's light for a month or more at a time. Its gravity is only around a third that of Earth's; it is unknown whether this is sufficient to support human beings for extended periods (all long-term human experience to date has been at around Earth gravity, or one g).

The atmosphere is thin enough, when coupled with Mars' lack of magnetic field, that radiation is more intense on the surface, and protection from solar storms would require radiation shielding.

Phobos and Deimos
The moons of Mars may be a target for space colonization. Low delta-v is needed to reach the Earth from Phobos and Deimos, allowing delivery of material to cislunar space, as well as transport around the Martian system. The moons themselves may be suitable for habitation, with methods similar to those for asteroids.

Venus
While the surface of Venus is far too hot and features atmospheric pressure at least 90 times that at sea level on Earth, its massive atmosphere offers a possible alternate location for colonization. At an altitude of approximately 50 km, the pressure is reduced to a few atmospheres, and the temperature would be between 40–100 °C, depending on the altitude. This part of the atmosphere is probably within dense clouds which contain some sulfuric acid. Even these may have a certain benefit to colonization, as they present a possible source for the extraction of water.

Mercury
There is a suggestion that Mercury could be colonized using the same technology, approach and equipment that is used in colonizing the Moon. Such colonies would almost certainly be restricted to the polar regions due to the extreme daytime temperatures elsewhere on the planet. Observations of Mercury's polar regions by radar from Earth and the on-going observations of the Messenger Probe have been consistent with water ice and/or other frozen volatiles being present in permanently shadowed areas of craters in Mercury's polar regions. Measurements of Mercury's exosphere, which is practically a vacuum, revealed more ions derived from water than scientists had expected. All of these observations are consistent with water ice and/or other volatiles being available to hypothetical future colonists of Mercury.

The asteroid belt
Colonization of asteroids would require space habitats. The asteroid belt has significant overall material available, the largest object being Ceres, although it is thinly distributed as it covers a vast region of space. Unmanned supply craft should be practical with little technological advance, even crossing 1/2 billion kilometers of cold vacuum. The colonists would have a strong interest in assuring that their asteroid did not hit Earth or any other body of significant mass, but would have extreme difficulty in moving an asteroid of any size. The orbits of the Earth and most asteroids are very distant from each other in terms of delta-v and the asteroidal bodies have enormous momentum. Rockets or mass drivers can perhaps be installed on asteroids to direct their path into a safe course.

Ceres
Ceres is a dwarf planet in the asteroid belt, comprising about one third the mass of the whole belt and being the sixth largest body in the inner Solar System by mass and volume. Ceres has a surface area somewhat larger than Argentina. Being the largest body in the asteroid belt, Ceres could become the main base and transport hub for future asteroid mining infrastructure, allowing mineral resources to be transported further to Mars, the Moon and Earth. See further: Main-Belt Asteroids. It may be possible to paraterraform Ceres, making life easier for the colonists. Given its low gravity and fast rotation, a space elevator would also be practical.

Europa, Callisto and Ganymede
The Artemis Project designed a plan to colonize Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. Scientists were to inhabit igloos and drill down into the Europan ice crust, exploring any sub-surface ocean. This plan discusses possible use of "air pockets" for human inhabitation. Europa is considered one of the more habitable bodies in the Solar System and so merits investigation as a possible abode for life. Ganymede is the largest moon in the Solar System. It may be attractive as Ganymede is the only moon with a magnetosphere and so is less irradiated at the surface. The presence of magnetosphere, likely indicates a convecting molten core within Ganymede, which may in turn indicate a rich geologic history for the moon.

NASA performed a study called HOPE (Revolutionary Concepts for Human Outer Planet Exploration) regarding the future exploration of the Solar System. The target chosen was Callisto. It could be possible to build a surface base that would produce fuel for further exploration of the Solar System. The three out of four largest moons of Jupiter (Europa, Ganymede and Callisto) have an abundance of volatiles making future colonization possible.

Moons of Saturn — Titan, Enceladus, and other
Titan is suggested as a target for colonization, because it is the only moon in the Solar System to have a dense atmosphere and is rich in carbon-bearing compounds. Robert Zubrin identified Titan as possessing an abundance of all the elements necessary to support life, making Titan perhaps the most advantageous locale in the outer Solar System for colonization, and saying "In certain ways, Titan is the most hospitable extraterrestrial world within our solar system for human colonization".

Enceladus is a small, icy moon orbiting close to Saturn, notable for its extremely bright surface and the geyser-like plumes of ice and water vapor that erupt from its southern polar region. If Enceladus has liquid water, it joins Mars and Jupiter's moon Europa as one of the prime places in the Solar System to look for extraterrestrial life and possible future settlements.

Other large satellites: Rhea, Iapetus, Dione, Tethys, and Mimas, all have large quantities of volatiles, which can be used to support settlement.

Moons of Uranus and Neptune
The five large moons of Uranus (Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon) and Triton—Neptune's largest moon—, although very cold, have large amounts of frozen water and other volatiles and could potentially be settled, only they would require a lot of nuclear power to sustain the habitats. Triton's thin atmosphere also contains some nitrogen and even some frozen nitrogen on the surface (the surface temperature is 38 K or about -391°Fahrenheit). Pluto is estimated to have a very similar structure to Triton.

The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud
Pluto is estimated to have a very similar structure to Triton. The Kuiper Belt is estimated to have 70,000 bodies of 100 km or larger. The Oort Cloud is estimated to have up to a trillion comets.

Other Solar System locations
Statites or "static satellites" employ solar sails to position themselves in orbits that gravity alone could not accomplish. Such a solar sail colony would be free to ride solar radiation pressure and travel off the ecliptic plane. Navigational computers with an advanced understanding of flocking behavior could organize several statite colonies into the beginnings of the true "swarm" concept of a Dyson sphere.

Surfaces of gas giants
It may be possible to colonize the three farthest gas giants with floating cities in their atmospheres. By heating hydrogen balloons, large masses can be suspended underneath at roughly Earth gravity. A human colony on Jupiter would be less practical due to the planet's high gravity, escape velocity and radiation. Such colonies could export Helium-3 for use in fusion reactors if they ever become practical. Escape from the gas giants (especially Jupiter) seems well beyond current or near-term foreseeable chemical-rocket technology however, due to the combination of large velocity and high acceleration needed even to achieve low orbit.

Outside the Solar System
Looking beyond the Solar System, there are up to several hundred billion potential stars with possible colonization targets. The main difficulty is the vast distances to other stars: roughly a hundred thousand times further away than the planets in the Solar System. This means that some combination of very high speed (some percentage of the speed of light), or travel times lasting centuries or millennia, would be required. These speeds are far beyond what current spacecraft propulsion systems can provide. Many scientific papers have been published about interstellar travel. Given sufficient travel time and engineering work, both unmanned and generational voyages seem possible, though representing a very considerable technological and economic challenge unlikely to be met for some time, particularly for manned probes.

Space colonization technology could in principle allow human expansion at high, but sub-relativistic speeds, substantially less than the speed of light, c. An interstellar colony ship would be similar to a space habitat, with the addition of major propulsion capabilities and independent energy generation.

Hypothetical starship concepts proposed both by scientists and in hard science fiction include:

A generation ship would travel much slower than light, with consequent interstellar trip times of many decades or centuries. The crew would go through generations before the journey is complete, so that none of the initial crew would be expected to survive to arrive at the destination, assuming current human lifespans.
A sleeper ship, in which most or all of the crew spend the journey in some form of hibernation or suspended animation, allowing some or all who undertake the journey to survive to the end.
An Embryo-carrying Interstellar Starship (EIS), much smaller than a generation ship or sleeper ship, transporting human embryos or DNA in a frozen or dormant state to the destination. (Obvious biological and psychological problems in birthing, raising, and educating such voyagers, neglected here, may not be fundamental.)
A nuclear fusion or fission powered ship (e.g., ion drive) of some kind, achieving velocities of up to perhaps 10% c permitting one-way trips to nearby stars with durations comparable to a human lifetime.
A Project Orion-ship, a nuclear-powered concept proposed by Freeman Dyson which would use nuclear explosions to propel a starship. A special case of the preceding nuclear rocket concepts, with similar potential velocity capability, but possibly easier technology.
Laser propulsion concepts, using some form of beaming of power from the Solar System might allow a light-sail or other ship to reach high speeds, comparable to those theoretically attainable by the fusion-powered electric rocket, above. These methods would need some means, such as supplementary nuclear propulsion, to stop at the destination, but a hybrid (light-sail for acceleration, fusion-electric for deceleration) system might be possible.

The above concepts all appear limited to high, but still sub-relativistic speeds, due to fundamental energy and reaction mass considerations, and all would entail trip times which might be enabled by space colonization technology, permitting self-contained habitats with lifetimes of decades to centuries. Yet human interstellar expansion at average speeds of even 0.1% of c would permit settlement of the entire Galaxy in less than one half of a galactic rotation period of ~250,000,000 years, which is comparable to the timescale of other galactic processes. Thus, even if interstellar travel at near relativistic speeds is never feasible (which cannot be clearly determined at this time), the development of space colonization could allow human expansion beyond the Solar System without requiring technological advances that cannot yet be reasonably foreseen. This could greatly improve the chances for the survival of intelligent life over cosmic timescales, given the many natural and human-related hazards that have been widely noted.

The star Tau Ceti, about twelve light years away, has an abundance of cometary and asteroidal material in orbit around it. These materials could be used for the construction of space habitats for human settlement. If humanity does gain access to a large amount of energy, on the order of the mass-energy of entire planets, it may eventually become feasible to construct Alcubierre drives. These are one of the few methods of superluminal travel which may be possible under current physics.

Intergalactic travel
Looking beyond the Milky Way, there are about 100 billion other galaxies in the observable universe. The distances between galaxies are on the order of a million times further than those between the stars. Because of the speed of light limit on how fast any material objects can travel in space, intergalactic travel would either have to involve voyages lasting millions of years, or a possible faster than light propulsion method based on speculative physics, such as the Alcubierre drive. There are, however, no scientific reasons for stating that intergalactic travel is impossible in principle.

Funding

Space colonization can roughly be said to be possible when the necessary methods of space colonization become cheap enough (such as space access by cheaper launch systems) to meet the cumulative funds that have been gathered for the purpose.

Although there are no immediate prospects for the large amounts of money required for space colonization to be available given traditional launch costs, there is some prospect of a radical reduction to launch costs in the 2010s, which would consequently lessen the cost of any efforts in that direction. With a published price of US$56.5 million per launch of up to 13,150 kg (28,990 lb) payload to low Earth orbit, SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets are already the "cheapest in the industry". Advancements currently being developed as part of the SpaceX reusable launch system development program to enable reusable Falcon 9s "could drop the price by an order of magnitude, sparking more space-based enterprise, which in turn would drop the cost of access to space still further through economies of scale." If SpaceX is successful in developing the reusable technology, it would be expected to "have a major impact on the cost of access to space", and change the increasingly competitive market in space launch services.

The President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy suggested that an inducement prize should be established, perhaps by government, for the achievement of space colonization, for example by offering the prize to the first organization to place humans on the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to Earth.

In addition, funding of research that aims to develop cheaper methods of space colonization also contributes to making it possible.

Terrestrial analogues to space colonies
The most famous attempt to build an analogue to a self-sufficient colony is Biosphere 2, which attempted to duplicate Earth's biosphere. BIOS-3 is another closed ecosystem, completed in 1972 in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia. Many space agencies build testbeds for advanced life support systems, but these are designed for long duration human spaceflight, not permanent colonization.

Remote research stations in inhospitable climates, such as the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station or Devon Island Mars Arctic Research Station, can also provide some practice for off-world outpost construction and operation. The Mars Desert Research Station has a habitat for similar reasons, but the surrounding climate is not strictly inhospitable.

Nuclear submarines provide an example of conditions encountered in artificial space environment. Crews of these vessels often spend long periods (6 months or more) submerged during their deployments. However, the submarine environment provides a somewhat open life support system since the vessel can replenish supplies of fresh water and oxygen from seawater.

Other examples of small groups in isolated living conditions are record long-distance flights, long-distance (single-handed) sails, oil platforms, prisons, bunkers, small islands and underground bases.

The study of terrestrial analogues is also a central focus in space architecture.

History
The first known work on space colonization was The Brick Moon, a work of fiction published in 1869 by Edward Everett Hale, about an inhabited artificial satellite.

The Russian schoolmaster and physicist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky foresaw elements of the space community in his book Beyond Planet Earth written about 1900. Tsiolkovsky had his space travelers building greenhouses and raising crops in space.[58] Tsiolkovsky believed that going into space would help perfect human beings, leading to immortality and peace.[59]

Others have also written about space colonies as Lasswitz in 1897 and Bernal, Oberth, Von Pirquet and Noordung in the 1920s. Wernher von Braun contributed his ideas in a 1952 Colliers article. In the 1950s and 1960s, Dandridge M. Cole[60] published his ideas.

Another seminal book on the subject was the book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space by Gerard K. O'Neill in 1977 which was followed the same year by Colonies in Space by T. A. Heppenheimer.

M. Dyson wrote Home on the Moon; Living on a Space Frontier in 2003; Peter Eckart wrote Lunar Base Handbook in 2006 and then Harrison Schmitt's Return to the Moon written in 2007.

As of 2013, Bigelow Aerospace is the only private commercial spaceflight company that has launched two experimental space station modules, Genesis I (2006) and Genesis II (2007), into Earth-orbit, and is planning to launch their BA 330 commercial production module into space by 2014 or 2015.[citation needed]

Objections

A corollary to the Fermi paradox—"nobody else is doing it"—is the argument that because no evidence of alien colonization technology exists, it is statistically unlikely to even be possible using that same level of technology ourselves.

Colonizing space would require massive amounts of financial, physical and human capital devoted to research, development, production, and deployment. Earth's natural resources do not increase to a noteworthy extent (which is in keeping with the "only one Earth" position of environmentalists). Thus, considerable efforts in colonizing places outside Earth would appear as a hazardous waste of the Earth's limited resources for an aim without a clear end.

The fundamental problem of public things, needed for survival, such as space programs, is the free rider problem. Convincing the public to fund such programs would require additional self-interest arguments: If the objective of space colonization is to provide a "backup" in case everyone on Earth is killed, then why should someone on Earth pay for something that is only useful after they are dead? This assumes that space colonization is not widely acknowledged as a sufficiently valuable social goal.

Although seen as a relief to the problem of overpopulation, others have argued that space colonization is an impractical solution; in 1999, science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke said that "the population battle must be fought or won here on Earth".

Other objections include concern about creating a culture in which humans are no longer seen as human, but rather as material assets. The issues of human dignity, morality, philosophy, culture, bioethics, and the threat of megalomaniac leaders in these new "societies" would all have to be addressed in order for space colonization to meet the psychological and social needs of people living in isolated colonies.

As an alternative or addendum for the future of the human race, many science fiction writers have focused on the realm of the 'inner-space', that is the computer-aided exploration of the human mind and human consciousness—possibly en route developmentally to a Matrioshka Brain.

Robotic exploration is proposed as an alternative to gain many of the same scientific advantages without the limited mission duration and high cost of life support and return transportation involved in manned missions.

It could seem that nationalism might unfold ever bigger dangers, once one carries it up and out into space. The exploration of space stronger and stronger blocks up the practical possibility of a war, as it decisively strengthens the factor of deterrence.

Another objection is the potential to cause interplanetary contamination on planets that may harbor hypothetical extraterrestrial life.






Yeah sure.

Getting into space is hard

Staying space is harder.

The alternative to staying in space is to form a colony on a habitable planet. Trouble is, there aren't any in our neighbourhood. The only candidates that provide even a sliver of possibilities are the Moon and Mars. Disadvantages of the moon are no atmosphere and so no protection whatsoever from solar radiation. Advantages are it's close. Disadvantages of Mars is next to no atmosphere and so, again, little protection from solar radiation. Additionally it's a lot further away than the Moon. Advantages are it has some water at the poles and enough atmosphere to be able to concentrate it in habitable living modules. Finally, both of these planetary bodies suffer from having no magnetic fields and so, again, no protection from solar radiation

However, the biggest obstacle to colonising the moon or Mars is the state of our Earth. If we can't manage this planet properly, one that is in principle utterly suitable for life, how on earth does anyone think we can keep our shit together sufficient to do so on planetary bodies utterly hostile to life? In addition to an unfolding environmental catastrophe here on Earth, we are now, at the planetary level, hitting the resource buffers so far as maintaining our global hydrocarbon based industrial civilisation is concerned. Consequently, we are going to be far too busy in the coming decades simply keeping ourselves fed and fighting with each other over the ashes of our industrial civilisation to have the time or [literally] the energy to be looking to colonise space. Our problem is hydrocarbons have allowed us to develop a completely disconnected existence from our environment. This, in turn, has fostered a ridiculous hubris on the back of the technologies born of this industrial age. But, without continued and ever increasing access to vast amounts of energy in the form of hydrocarbons, all the above is dust.

However, even if we find an alternative to hydrocarbons or, even worse, we decide to mine the hydrocarbon methane clathrate monsters beneath the ocean, we will unleash a climate catastrophe not seen since the end of the Permian. Indeed, we might already have started an unstoppable climate change. Basically, we get to crash on the back of running out energy, or we get to burn on the back of not running out of energy. That's our future as a species. We have backed ourselves into a corner and with 7 billion plus mouths to feed there is no easy way out. The only pertinent question that remains is how we manage the coming collapse. The future, politically, for humans is either some form of socialism or a return to barbarism. In the context of all the above, I am bound to say I find the notion that we are going to colonise space simply laughable.

We have all just lived through the peak of human civilisation in terms of both cultural as well as technological complexity. The vast majority of us just don't realise it yet.

[RedHal]

it would probably start with a giant space station orbitting Earth, Elysium was an interesting concept of what would happen under a caplitalist system.

[Axiomasher]

Humans will not colonize space. We'll be lucky if we make it to the end of this century here on earth.

Yeah, I'm also sceptical about our anticipated colonisation of space. In part I think we're victims of the success of science-fiction (of which I'ma big fan I have to say) which has led us into assuming we're going to be living on other planets or in space sooner or later. I'm not opposed to space exploration, far from it, I just don't think, on reflection, that it's where we're going to 'be'. I'll keep an open mind because who knows where technological advance will get us, but otherwise space is a highly dangerous, technologically difficult and very expensive place to go while at the same time, Earth is precisely where we've evolved to live, no other space-ship is likely to suit us as much.

[AmilcarCabral]

By the way here in this link is the whole full movie Elysium for free http://yify.tv/elysium/



it would probably start with a giant space station orbitting Earth, Elysium was an interesting concept of what would happen under a caplitalist system.

[Rss]

Yeah sure.

Getting into space is hard

Staying space is harder.

The alternative to staying in space is to form a colony on a habitable planet. Trouble is, there aren't any in our neighbourhood. The only candidates that provide even a sliver of possibilities are the Moon and Mars. Disadvantages of the moon are no atmosphere and so no protection whatsoever from solar radiation. Advantages are it's close. Disadvantages of Mars is next to no atmosphere and so, again, little protection from solar radiation. Additionally it's a lot further away than the Moon. Advantages are it has some water at the poles and enough atmosphere to be able to concentrate it in habitable living modules. Finally, both of these planetary bodies suffer from having no magnetic fields and so, again, no protection from solar radiation

However, the biggest obstacle to colonising the moon or Mars is the state of our Earth. If we can't manage this planet properly, one that is in principle utterly suitable for life, how on earth does anyone think we can keep our shit together sufficient to do so on planetary bodies utterly hostile to life? In addition to an unfolding environmental catastrophe here on Earth, we are now, at the planetary level, hitting the resource buffers so far as maintaining our global hydrocarbon based industrial civilisation is concerned. Consequently, we are going to be far too busy in the coming decades simply keeping ourselves fed and fighting with each other over the ashes of our industrial civilisation to have the time or [literally] the energy to be looking to colonise space. Our problem is hydrocarbons have allowed us to develop a completely disconnected existence from our environment. This, in turn, has fostered a ridiculous hubris on the back of the technologies born of this industrial age. But, without continued and ever increasing access to vast amounts of energy in the form of hydrocarbons, all the above is dust.

However, even if we find an alternative to hydrocarbons or, even worse, we decide to mine the hydrocarbon methane clathrate monsters beneath the ocean, we will unleash a climate catastrophe not seen since the end of the Permian. Indeed, we might already have started an unstoppable climate change. Basically, we get to crash on the back of running out energy, or we get to burn on the back of not running out of energy. That's our future as a species. We have backed ourselves into a corner and with 7 billion plus mouths to feed there is no easy way out. The only pertinent question that remains is how we manage the coming collapse. The future, politically, for humans is either some form of socialism or a return to barbarism. In the context of all the above, I am bound to say I find the notion that we are going to colonise space simply laughable.

We have all just lived through the peak of human civilisation in terms of both cultural as well as technological complexity. The vast majority of us just don't realise it yet.

I smell anarcho-primitivism and doomer mentality. While I agree that oil-dependent society has shot itself in the foot, there are many promising alternative energy sources.

[Slavic]

@AmilcarCabral

Seriously man, paraphrase. Don't post the entire contents of a wiki article. Either paraphrase or provide a link.

@tallguy

I am in partial agreement. As much as I'd like to see expansion of space travel/habitats I am of the pessimistic view that our species will wither out before such a feat is accomplished.

That being said, I take issue with this:
"We have all just lived through the peak of human civilisation in terms of both cultural as well as technological complexity. The vast majority of us just don't realise it yet."

I am sure that such a statement has been made by many people throughout all of mankind. It is extremely vague and unsound unless you possess the ability to see into the future.

[tallguy]

@AmilcarCabral

Seriously man, paraphrase. Don't post the entire contents of a wiki article. Either paraphrase or provide a link.

@tallguy

I am in partial agreement. As much as I'd like to see expansion of space travel/habitats I am of the pessimistic view that our species will wither out before such a feat is accomplished.

That being said, I take issue with this:
"We have all just lived through the peak of human civilisation in terms of both cultural as well as technological complexity. The vast majority of us just don't realise it yet."

I am sure that such a statement has been made by many people throughout all of mankind. It is extremely vague and unsound unless you possess the ability to see into the future.
It is obviously impossible to make any kind of tight predictions about the future. However, it is quite possible to make some broad ones. Particularly when it comers to civilisational collapses as they have occurred with depressing regularity over the course of human history and for largely similar reasons. It comes down to either environmental degradation and/or exhaustion of key resource. Usually both.

They key difference between past collapse and the present, however, is that the survivors retrenched and migrated out to new territories. That strategy can no longer be employed. We have, in the last few hundred years, expanded to every habitable part of the globe. All on the back of the one-time draw-down of the stored solar energy of millennia in the form of hydrocarbons. Consequently, the growth of the global human population has gone ballistic from around five hundred million in 1750 to more than seven billion today. Indeed, we only need to go back as far at the start of human civilisation, around 10 thousand years ago, to find the population lower than 100 million globally. The collapse this time around leaves us nowhere else to go and will be akin to the disaster that hit Easter Island except that it will be written at a planetary level.

I have included a graphic of the problem, below, to try and bring home the severity of our situation
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae67/stevecook172001/pupulationgrowth_zps07d22412.jpg (http://s958.photobucket.com/user/stevecook172001/media/pupulationgrowth_zps07d22412.jpg.html)